I'm starting to get tired of players !resigning or worse, quitting when they think all is lost. i.e. as soon as the enemy has broken the front line. at this point, yes, the enemy has the advantage, and it looks like they are going to win. HOWEVER they have to REALIZE and TAKE this advantage. there's more to the game than pure strength vs strength, time and time again I've seen one team on the brink of total annihilation, pull back and WIN in the end, because the other team did not take the advantage and keep momentum after an assault on a hard point. If you quit too early you leave your teammates to take up the micro slack. it's nearly impossible to pull back from an successful push by the enemy if someone does this. voting for a team resign is annoying, distracting, and un-necessary. please. please. please. DON'T QUIT TILL THERE'S A DETRI TRAMPING THROUGH YOUR ECON AND YOU HAVE NO COUNTER. and hey, to quote from Dwarf Fortress "Loosing is fun!"
+0 / -0
|
I honestly rarely see this. Maybe some newbs do resign after losing com's, but mostly people start resigning when it is 90% over.
+0 / -0
|
I often hear burp raging about his "noobteam" resigning while he is "winning anyway". :P
+0 / -0
|
It happens. I have a demo where Godde has a Dante standing in front of a defenseless enemy base with wolas's skuttle launcher. Nobody resigned though and Godde's team lost in the end. It's "Losing is fun" btw.
+0 / -0
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still used to com-ends game play. When i loose my Boy i automatically type GG and quit. Really can't help it, it is muscle memory.
+0 / -0
|
Looks like your chat picture fits to that ;)
+0 / -0
|
wolas, he often said something like "no expansion, no mexes, no eco", then types !resign or resigns right away. It's been a while since I saw him playing though, so he might've changed. The "67% afk" part applies too, but is something different. :D
+0 / -0
|
quote:
I cant even relate to the Playing On mindset, not even a little.
The game is fun while it is a competition. It ceases to be fun once it becomes a process to be completed - like watching a Coup de grâce cutscene that can last 20 minutes.
My mindset is - if we immediately finish this game in which one side has indisputably won, we can then immediately begin a new game, in which both sides have an equal chance of winning. There is no reason to endure the long follow up to final victory, because achieving the position where the other side resigns IS the victory!
Where is the entertainment of watching your units shoot solars and closed razorkisses for ten minutes while the other team afk until the game technically completes?
The only - ONLY - people I can see arguing in favoor this are very new or very poor players, because these demographics are generally so poor at the game that the only time they are controlling a significant number of units that are destroying enemy units is when their allies have destroyed all resistance and they are just spamming units with an endgame economy and firing at defenceless structures. There is no entertainment here for anyone who has got over the basic mechanics of the game.
I might add that the main demographics that complain about this sort of thing are players that do not grasp the bigger picture in a teamgame - that focus on their 'lane' to the exclusion of all else, and then become upset when their defeated team resigns while they are winning 'their game'.
If such players were to view the bigger picture, it would occour to them that their lane is shortly going to be crushed from all sides and they have a 0% chance of breaking out, destroying the enemy bases and winning without their team. |
+0 / -0
|
Whether to resign or not should be a personal choice. If player resigns it does not hurt team so much with auto take.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
*cough* Licho! cough |
was about to say the same
+0 / -0
|
Yes, I think it happens quite a lot. I end up with more and more players to take over. And the reason I lose then is that I can't macro the whole thing against a team with complete playerbase. Especially lately when high Elo player troll, lose their commander and resign because they have lost everything. Instead of resigning they could still contribute by taking over a cons and rebuilding, or microing some parts. Btw: I would not take them and continue if I was thinking that it's over. When I know for sure that it's over I also resign and start a voteresign. But the problem I described is about individial players resigning, not about the team making voteresign pass when it's not over. This also happens but much more rarely.
+0 / -0
|
There are SOOOO many good ideas that Dota 2 has to enforce good community behavior. It's honestly one of the best online communities of its size. How resign in Dota 2 works: if someone on your team resigns, they are penalized by being put in a lower-priority matchmaking queue. ZK doesn't have this, but similar penalties could be imagined. However, once the first player has left, everyone else is free to leave without penalty. It works really, really well. One day I will type up all my ideas on how Dota 2 builds a friendlier community and how I would make it work in ZK's environment.
+0 / -0
|
  Antelope: The sooner the better, probably. Also, if DotA 2 has a friendly community in general, then colour me pleasantly surprised (I tend not to play DotA-likes online, so I haven't really checked myself).
+0 / -0
|
Some ideas might be really good, but the way that ZK is different I think quitting penalties are a really bad idea. You can't force people to play, and it is better to be able to take their assets then have them play half-heartedly. If there are multiple high-elo people on your team resigning, you should consider that the game is genuinely over. It's not about the front line being broken, but it's about the difference in economy. If one side has twice the production of the other side, and plenty of defenses, then they can just keep building eco and defenses and the other side dies a very slow death. Perhaps the correct approach is to make a win condition when one side has twice or thrice the net assets and/or income of the other side (except in ffa).
+0 / -0
|
> If one side has twice the production of the other side, and plenty of defenses, then they can just keep building eco and defenses and the other side dies a very slow death. Yep, this is how Dota works as well. Imagine if every time your com killed an enemy com it got a free morph. This is (roughly) how Dota 2 works, so one team slowly becomes more and more powerful with each kill, and slowly run over the enemy. Yet somehow people still enjoy it, because even in (semi-open) beta stage they have a quarter million people playing each night. Dota games typically last between 30 and 50 minutes, which is very similar to a ZK team game. >and it is better to be able to take their assets then have them play half-heartedly. This is how Dota works as well. You can try to use the quitter's Hero even though they have left. Their income is split among the team (100% identical to ZK) and their hero is controllable by those who still remain (100% identical to ZK). It's much more nuanced than you make it out to be, which is why this discussion will be best when I can 1)Type out all the cool carrots/sticks that Dota 2 has and 2)Translate them into methods that ZK can use.
+0 / -0
|
http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/71228I remember playing a game where the enemy did NOT resign when it was over. Map was Indonesia and I made it clear that taking and holding the middle super mexes was essential to victory. We did precisely that and a long battle for control over the center was fought. After multiple attacks, trials and wrecks lost in our territory, it was clear to me that we had an advantage. What was unknown to me was that our enemies had merely some defences and threatening heavies that kept us from steamrolling them (and that most of our assets was in my considerable fleet of 10 enforcers and so didn't directly threaten their base); the game was essentially over by that point. We had a stronger economy, stronger army, better defences and more infrastructure. Furthermore, since we played defensively and cautiously, taking and holding the supermexes, we gave them no opening to take advantage of and were proceeding to slowly grind them down with a superior economy. This is why we have resign. The other team knows its over. Note that until the very end, they never lost their front line.
+0 / -0
|
Dota 2 has penalties for leavers because the micro that each player brings to their team is extremely important. Basically all the mechanics aspects of the game revolve around controlling a single, hard to control, unit so a team is a massive disadvantage if they don't have enough people to control the units. ZK has players control many units at once. Each unit takes much less attention and the UI is designed to allow people to scale up with unit control. Controlling twice as many units is not so difficult that leaving players are a problem. I also find Dota 2 more volatile. In the end game each team is just a particularly bad teamfight away from losing.
+0 / -0
|
!resign is a vote... and its usually not instantaneous (if it is, it is because loss is obvious, so OP would just drain time on everyone by not accepting it). Not instantaneous means that if you have something up your sleeve that teammates may not have seen, you can speak up... thats what democracy is about. If you can't convince your team, either you are bad at PR, or maybe its just that your opinion is indefendable... Individual resignation is what is it, an individual choice. If you can come up with a penalty system for troll resignation (damaging when done by high ELO players playing with only his com) that doesn't kick in when this player is obviously right that his team his beyond hopeless... why not. I doubt it can be done easily/reliably. I don't know DF enough to comment... but loosing in a game with no state kept from game to game is just a loss of time. Unless your goal is to collect that terraform award by digging a big hole.
+0 / -0
|
